>>564420ahh well. A random process is pretty self explanatory, it's a function that is the outcome of a random event. A bug walking around randomly on a sheet of paper would generate an (almost) random process. In general we use random processes to model things like signals. Usually we're interested in properties such as the mean, variance and autocorrelation of those functions, but also on the covariance and cross-correlation. Its a whole topic in itself that's hard to explain in a few sentences.

>>564421no one's perfekt. I sincerely doubt you'd be the type I lose patience for. Though who knows maybe you could surprise me. That would probably say more about the length of my temper than anything else if you were though.

>>564442I mean they could be. the phrase 'truly random' is kind misleading. Because something follows a given probability distribution function doesn't mean it's more or less random than anything else, but that doesn't mean we can't make assumptions about it's properties. For a concrete example, if we wanted to create a model for human speech, we might expect it to follow a pattern of syllables, and to have only a limited variation in pitch, volume and tempo. But knowing those properties doesn't mean we can predict what the next syllable will be given any number of syllables. Properties such as correlation can be used to work out how similar two random process are. They could be entirely different, but if their statistical properties are similar they might have been generated by the same or similar source. A naïve voice recognition device might calculate the cross correlation between a 'correct answer' recording and the recording you provide it for example.

Other examples might be we want to determine the properties of random noise on a phone line for example so we can filter those specific properties and produce cleaner speech after transmission.

i mean, i don't wanna go full narcissist, but i am always curious about how people view me

>>564456ah, so it allows for more accurate systems for predictive and filtering? so going back to the language example. it could follow syntax and grammar and word placement enough to make what is akin to an educated guess to fill in what would be the next part of a sequence, where previously it wouldn't? Like if the only logical follow up to a word was a verb, it would be able to take information and place what should logically be there?

I think you're very sweet and loving. And I think you need somebody to pry deeper than that. Sometimes it seems like you're trying to play it safe with us, and I'm quite curious what's under there. I want to talk with Judy!

>>564459>Like if the only logical follow up to a word was a verb.While that might be true, that's more of the realm of linguistics or something.

What I mean by a random model of speech is one that has statistical properties similar to speech however it would be generated randomly. If you were to generate something like this and try to listen to it, it would be just babbling white noise. It would be blank, generic, speech without any kind of syntax or vocabulary, like a babbling baby where it is impossible to tell whether 'goo', 'gah' or 'blagh' is going to come next. Or like ambient conversation noise where you know or certain it's a crowd of people speaking at the same time but you can't understand what anyone in particular is saying. It sounds contrived, but generating this sort of blank speech would be a first step to generating synthetic speech.

all of my issues go back to my relationship with my drunk emotionally abusive mom.

so when you live in a situation where you fear the other person, you need to be aware of not only what you say, but how you say it and how it will translate to the other person, because that could mean the difference between being okay, and the rest of your day ruined.

and when that is your every day life for 22 years, then you treat everyone in a similar fashion, because that's what you have been conditioned to know. you MUST say the right thing all the time, or else you will suffer the consequences.

i remember times when non-important things would end up being bad for me, and i also remember times when i didn't do anything, and still things turned out bad for me.

and that makes sense to me. i don't know if it's the same thing. but i remember hearing about these high end headphones that would pick up the ambient noise outside of the headphones, and use that to tonally cancel out the outside noise maintain the sound inside the headphones

i want to tell everyone that my cake was a success! the only 2 things that were sub par was the cracks (which don't affect the flavor) and the crust wasn't firm enough, which means i should have used more butter for that

but everything else was perfect!

i need to rest now, so goodnight everyone <3

>>564486not in this case, but that's because the context wasn't correct.